Jack11803
Jack11803
About
- Username
- Jack11803
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
It’s downright wrong and against the terms of service to revoke one’s license of the game from not winning enough
-
I also talk to myself...
-
@cTrix said:
Who's Marth and what did he do.Just search de-pip squad experiment
-
@cTrix said:
Then why was I just quoting McLean
Maybe the devs told you the stats that way cus the community keeps insisting that the only thing that matters are kills. Gamers are too used to think in terms of winning or losing they can't see the world objectively anymore.
Sorry, I tried to purge the Marth fiasco from my soul. So too did many others
-
Jokes on men, I ’m not
-
@cTrix said:
Nice rules you came up with there Way to be arbitrary.
Pretty sure if I get tunneled and camped and the other 3 survivors escape I didn't win anything.People can't seem to understand that you don't win or lose in this game. You only have fun or you don't have fun.
Jokes on you, I didn’t make it, the devs did. You’d know that if you bothered reading any previous posts
-
@Sythalin said:
@chococri said:
Do you realize this is harsh, right? Besides, what if some has the bad luck to die 1st without touching a gen because the killer is facecsmping or tunneling them in several games in a row? Also, there are people better at hiding than running away in chases. This is harsh and no sense.Then they shouldn't be playing public games. We're talking escaping 1 out of 3 games or failing to get 2 kills per game every 3 games. Statistics posted by the devs themselves considers these to be"average" and quite honestly not that hard to accomplish for either role.
You’ve actually managed to surpass my level of disregard and ruthlessness toward other players infamous in game and on the forum. That is not only incredibly difficult, but definitely not a good thing as well.
-
@knell said:
@Jack11803 said:
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%I don't remember this being mentioned in any of the developer streams, and I can't seem to find this statistic on the overview of the streams - can you please provide the source for this?
Also, if you are considering "a win" as surviving, and "a loss" as getting killed, what is this "tie" at 20%?
@Master said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Scourge said:
Jack11803 said:@Master said:
@Vortexas said:
I think survivors forget, they aren't entitled to an escape.
I think they forget looping is too easy, and abuseable.
I think they forget how big a pain in the ass pallets are.
I think they forget how many safety nets they get with there Meta Perks.
I think Survivors forget just how easy it is for them to win, yet whine and cry when killer gets a small buff either way.
You forgot about SWF
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%
Not a rank 1 sorry, but in a survivor group even with randoms. On rank 1 everyone has a major understanding on how broken survivor is. If they are playing correctly and aren’t facing a God-Tier Nurse or Billy than your numbers are quite incorrect
It was on the dev streams. They’re not MY numbers
Can you link that stream? Must have missed that one, I am curious now
@cTrix said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Master said:
@Vortexas said:
I think survivors forget, they aren't entitled to an escape.I think they forget looping is too easy, and abuseable.
I think they forget how big a pain in the ass pallets are.
I think they forget how many safety nets they get with there Meta Perks.
I think Survivors forget just how easy it is for them to win, yet whine and cry when killer gets a small buff either way.
You forgot about SWF
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%
How do you even tie a game in DBD lmao
Everyone thinking their definitions of what a "win" is apply to everyone else. The game never gives you a lose or win screen lol. It's all in your head.@DarkWo1f997 said:
cTrix said:@Jack11803 said:
@Master said:
@Vortexas said:
I think survivors forget, they aren't entitled to an escape.
I think they forget looping is too easy, and abuseable.
I think they forget how big a pain in the ass pallets are.
I think they forget how many safety nets they get with there Meta Perks.
I think Survivors forget just how easy it is for them to win, yet whine and cry when killer gets a small buff either way.
You forgot about SWF
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%
How do you even tie a game in DBD lmao
I would like to know this as well. #########.
Based on the whole team and if they’re all solo. Win is at least 3 live, tie is 2, lose is anything under 2. 3 survivors OR MORE (only reason constant 4k’s didn’t occur was hatch, proving why it’s needed) dead occured 70% of the time. 2 deaths 20%, and a win 10% (4 survivors probably occured 2-3%). This was recorded and shown during the howling grounds I believe.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@Jack11803 said:
All the killer’s complaining about lobby times if WGLF is buffed are insane! 1) were asking for easier tokens, not more. 2) killers are currently having absolute ass queue times EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN EVENT, there IS NOT ENOUGH SURVIVORS. 3) WGLF gives 1/4 the survivor team more points, bbq is the whole team. The stupid 1/4 philosophy can’t be twisted and turned any way one of us wants. Quit using it, it’s bullshit. It’s only applicable to actual math where it effects everyone. WGLF gives points to ONE SURVIVOR. DS GIVES TIME TO EVERY SURVIVOR FOR EACH USE
lol
There is not enough survivor"? Are you kidding me? It's the matchmaking that is broken/bugged.
There is a frickin lot of survivor, but killer do not get lobbies anyway.
It's a technical issue.
And there ist no "killer complaining about lobbies". We just point out that survivor will start complaining about lobbies (again) if WGLF gets buffed.
But yea, enjoy shooting yourself in the knee.^^WGLF got nerfed to solve a SURVIVOR ISSUE.
But you choose to ignore that.You’re absolutely delusional if you think making WGLF tokens easier to get (so you actually reach 100%) will hurt lobby’s.
-
It’s a way of life
-
Vaults are now determined by momentum, not speed. Mechanics changed. Clown was not considered. That is all. Nothing else to it.
-
@jmaximo93 said:
The point of no mither is give players a challenge. What you're suggesting would ruin what the perk is about. No second chances, no extra time, it's 1 hit and down.and DS is MEANT to be a get out of a jail free card. Doesn’t change that’s it needs a change as it’s OP as hell. I don’t give a crap what you think it should be. Give an actual balance reason why it shouldn’t be buffed.
-
@DeadByFlashlight said:
Nerex7 said:@DeadByFlashlight said:
Make it easier for survivors to gain BP and the only advantage to play killer is gone.
Now guess how that would affect the queues (btw, this was the reason why BBQ was introduced back in the days, to get more killers again )
Now that comment is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this forum so far. You will still gain a shitton more points than Survivors. I was just refering to making the tokens easier to obtain, as it is pretty stupid to only get the full tokens in what? 1 out of 4 or 5 games without going WAY out of your way?
BBQ was NEVER introduced to "fix queues" (unless you can provide solid proof for this claim). The mechanic of it was to follow an anti-tunnel playstyle (hook different survivors instead of only 1) to be then rewarded for it (25% for each unique hook).
A competent survivor can easily gain the same amount of b, usually around 20k.
Now if they manage to get the full totems most of the time, you will gain the same bp as you do right now as a killer. However as survivor you don't depend on items and even if you bring some, you keep them after a win.Do you remember die times when wglf was strong as he'll? Everybody played survivor and there were 45 mim queue times.
It doesn't matter whether you tunnel or not, you only need to hook everyone once and fact is, once you tune led the first game you slowed down the game hard enough in order to play with the other 3 survivors
All the killer’s complaining about lobby times if WGLF is buffed are insane! 1) were asking for easier tokens, not more. 2) killers are currently having absolute ass queue times EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN EVENT, there IS NOT ENOUGH SURVIVORS. 3) WGLF gives 1/4 the survivor team more points, bbq is the whole team. The stupid 1/4 philosophy can’t be twisted and turned any way one of us wants. Quit using it, it’s bullshit. It’s only applicable to actual math where it effects everyone. WGLF gives points to ONE SURVIVOR. DS GIVES TIME TO EVERY SURVIVOR FOR EACH USE
-
@Nerex7 said:
Or, very freak idea right here, you could play a ton of killer because it earns bloodpoints easier to then spend them on the Survivor gaspYou do realized you inadvertently pointed out proof as to why the people asking for more survivor points are right.... right?
-
@Scourge said:
Jack11803 said:@Master said:
@Vortexas said:
I think survivors forget, they aren't entitled to an escape.
I think they forget looping is too easy, and abuseable.
I think they forget how big a pain in the ass pallets are.
I think they forget how many safety nets they get with there Meta Perks.
I think Survivors forget just how easy it is for them to win, yet whine and cry when killer gets a small buff either way.
You forgot about SWF
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%
Not a rank 1 sorry, but in a survivor group even with randoms. On rank 1 everyone has a major understanding on how broken survivor is. If they are playing correctly and aren’t facing a God-Tier Nurse or Billy than your numbers are quite incorrect
It was on the dev streams. They’re not MY numbers
-
@Tiersis said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Tiersis said:
Its right there, in the Lobby:
They're our victims. They are our Prey. We should treat them as such.
And killer’s are trying to kill us. We should treat them as nothing’s who want us killed. Do whatever it takes no matter how they feel. They shouldn’t take it personally, they’re psychopathic killers
Exactly! If you're going to earn the title of Survivor, You need to outwit, outplay, and outlast. Thats how it goes right?
Exactly
-
@Tiersis said:
Its right there, in the Lobby:They're our victims. They are our Prey. We should treat them as such.
And killer’s are trying to kill us. We should treat them as nothing’s who want us killed. Do whatever it takes no matter how they feel. They shouldn’t take it personally, they’re psychopathic killers
-
@Tsulan said:
@Tzeentchling9 said:
Jack11803 said:@Master said:
@Vortexas said:
I think survivors forget, they aren't entitled to an escape.
I think they forget looping is too easy, and abuseable.
I think they forget how big a pain in the ass pallets are.
I think they forget how many safety nets they get with there Meta Perks.
I think Survivors forget just how easy it is for them to win, yet whine and cry when killer gets a small buff either way.
You forgot about SWF
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%
Hot damn, I must be a God among rank 1 solo Survivors then.
Same...
I even play without SB, SC or DS.Walking among gods...
AWAKEN MY MASTERS!
-
@Nos37 said:
Instead of having the Broken status effect, starting the match injured with the HUD icon, just have the Survivor start the match healthy with the Exposed status effect for the whole match. Hard mode; no Resilience buffs; no more injured music.No one wants this stupid hard mode perk. Everyone here wants a viable trade off perk. Not utter #########
-
I guess it was meant to be wear and tear before prestige. I believe the new black and blue head goes with it as well
-
@MrMadMask said:
@AStupidMonkeyy said:
No.Why? Any negation of the ideas presented would be gladly helped if backed up by the reasoning behind it.
It destroys the one synergy (good thing) no mither has. Starting injured for injured perks
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
@Jack11803 said:
@MichaelAMyers said:
@Jack11803 said:
@MichaelAMyers said:
@powerbats said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
well im just going to ignore you since ijust noticed you only have a total of 64 posts which says alot
@Wahara only has 101 most in this thread, I've got well 2.9k, other are in between, does that make my position stronger than yours which has only 885 posts?
Inb4 Wahara backtracks and makes himself look like a jester since he wanna call people cheerleaders.
They didnt make that comment. The OP did
What's the difference between them? I see none tbh since both are trying to use the same arguments for something that makes no sense whatsoever.
I ship it. Without a lore change of course
So you ship two walls? LOL.
If pixals can have it, mortor should be able to have it too!
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
@Jack11803 said:
@MichaelAMyers said:
@powerbats said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
well im just going to ignore you since ijust noticed you only have a total of 64 posts which says alot
@Wahara only has 101 most in this thread, I've got well 2.9k, other are in between, does that make my position stronger than yours which has only 885 posts?
Inb4 Wahara backtracks and makes himself look like a jester since he wanna call people cheerleaders.
They didnt make that comment. The OP did
What's the difference between them? I see none tbh since both are trying to use the same arguments for something that makes no sense whatsoever.
I ship it. Without a lore change of course
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
@powerbats said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
well im just going to ignore you since ijust noticed you only have a total of 64 posts which says alot
@Wahara only has 101 most in this thread, I've got well 2.9k, other are in between, does that make my position stronger than yours which has only 885 posts?
Inb4 Wahara backtracks and makes himself look like a jester since he wanna call people cheerleaders.
They didnt make that comment. The OP did
-
@Master said:
@Vortexas said:
I think survivors forget, they aren't entitled to an escape.I think they forget looping is too easy, and abuseable.
I think they forget how big a pain in the ass pallets are.
I think they forget how many safety nets they get with there Meta Perks.
I think Survivors forget just how easy it is for them to win, yet whine and cry when killer gets a small buff either way.
You forgot about SWF
EVERYONE forgets about the solo lose rate.... solo players lose over 70% of matches at rank 1. They tie 20%. Which means they win..... 10%
-
@powerbats said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
well im just going to ignore you since ijust noticed you only have a total of 64 posts which says alot
@Wahara only has 101 most in this thread, I've got well 2.9k, other are in between, does that make my position stronger than yours which has only 885 posts?
thinking face
-
@Wahara said:
@Aari_Piggy66 said:
Wahara said:Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.
You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
Damn @Wahara pulling no punches.
This going to be funNah, I've pretty well lost control over the conversation at this point. Condescension and ridicule only work on people smart enough to realize they're getting curb stomped. You won't get a concession or anything, but it can usually get people who are more aware to at least drop a non point. In Shrimp's case, he just seems to really not get it, and there's not much I can do about that without damaging my own credibility by being forced to repeat myself.
So, a change in tactics. I'll simply have an "Irrelevant posts boat" that I place people into and a "People I am still potentially taking seriously" boat I place people into, and do what I can to make sure the discussion reflects the latter more than the former.
"well im just going to ignore you since ijust noticed you only have a total of 64 posts which says alot"
Ignoring MichaelMyers would make this conversation much healthier. He's reduced himself to the role of cheerleader at this point and regardless of whether you think LGBTQ characters should be included or not, you have to admit that's really unhelpful to the discussion.
Can we get an F in chat?
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
M> @TheLegendDyl4n1 said:@Mango_Fett said:
I think it's mainly because they are most played (especially Meg and Claudette) due to them being the original characters that everyone owns. But yeah I do agree as I would love the other characters to get a bit more love in terms of cosmetics, but I think BHVR is trying to appeal to the majority with giving the original characters so many cosmetics.i know but if they really did the poll you would see that they arent the majority played its just they were around when legacy was around and people had them leveled up first but i really want to see more nea, feng, and david stuff i mean the reason this is becomin a problem is because when the store first came out they cam out with stuff then just kept coming out with stuff for dwight, meg, claudete, and jake with a few for the others here and thier and at one point i was like ######### meg has 40 something items and nea has 2 something items
1) they’re free, keep in mind console starts with dlc (if you’re on console) Ming and Ace are normally requiring money. 2) they’re the original 4. They’re the icons of the game and the survivor faction. 3) No, they are STILL THE MOST POPULAR.
proof? for 3
Devstream data
-
@yeet said:
it takes longer for killers to get vials actuallyThat’s exactly the problem. 1 killer accounts for 4 survivors. Every survivor who finishes their side (which is faster than killer) will go to killer. This will create MASSIVE matchmaking issues.
-
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion. You are right that people are unlikely to admit being LGBT. Even nowadays this is true. However, I wanted to point out that it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
My own country, while tolerant and progressive, has a few bad apples. Just by holding hands with my BF, I triggered some old fart to make the most disgusted face I'd ever seen.For a second I thought you were saying you caused a loud ass fart and this guy gave you a nasty look. I can read lol
Silent but deadly. That's my style. It's also how I prefer to play games.
Is an Insidious Letherface
-
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion. You are right that people are unlikely to admit being LGBT. Even nowadays this is true. However, I wanted to point out that it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
My own country, while tolerant and progressive, has a few bad apples. Just by holding hands with my BF, I triggered some old fart to make the most disgusted face I'd ever seen.For a second I thought you were saying you caused a loud ass fart and this guy gave you a nasty look. I can read lol
-
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
-
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
-
M> @TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Mango_Fett said:
I think it's mainly because they are most played (especially Meg and Claudette) due to them being the original characters that everyone owns. But yeah I do agree as I would love the other characters to get a bit more love in terms of cosmetics, but I think BHVR is trying to appeal to the majority with giving the original characters so many cosmetics.i know but if they really did the poll you would see that they arent the majority played its just they were around when legacy was around and people had them leveled up first but i really want to see more nea, feng, and david stuff i mean the reason this is becomin a problem is because when the store first came out they cam out with stuff then just kept coming out with stuff for dwight, meg, claudete, and jake with a few for the others here and thier and at one point i was like ######### meg has 40 something items and nea has 2 something items
1) they’re free, keep in mind console starts with dlc (if you’re on console) Ming and Ace are normally requiring money. 2) they’re the original 4. They’re the icons of the game and the survivor faction. 3) No, they are STILL THE MOST POPULAR.
-
⌨️> @Global said:
Dude can over power a killer and stab them with some orange goop. When can i buy him?
That wasn’t vigo. It was the person who got into Vigo’s lab equipment. I do want vigo though
-
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
-
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Wahara said:
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still their get their jollies and so do people like me.
Honestly, to summarize why we don’t want this, this community is big on the “font fix what isn’t broken” and even a few word changes in the bio would introduce a game breaking big. Tis spaghetti code
as i have previously stated multiple times that they didnt have to change anything in the game but just say who was LGBTQ+ and who was straight and it would be added to the DBD wiki and become common knowledge to older dbd players.
The most recent time period survivor in the game is the beginning 2000’s. LGBTQ didn’t even exist. There’s your reason
-
This event is actually one sided on both sides.
-
@Wahara said:
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still their get their jollies and so do people like me.
Honestly, to summarize why we don’t want this, this community is big on the “font fix what isn’t broken” and even a few word changes in the bio would introduce a game breaking big. Tis spaghetti code
-
@Wahara said:
chuckleI didn't think the tags would be necessary considering this thread has a whopping 5 pages already. This topic is where the buzz is. You can assume I'm a coward or maybe...you can assume I made a pretty reasonable guess that you'd be paying attention?
I didn't even have to get my pimp hand ready. Look at that. All that anger with no substance. It's beautiful. No attempt to actually address a point or form a structured argument. Speaking of which, did you know that the attitude you receive directly corresponds to the attitude that you come off with? It's crazy #########, huh?
At least he’s capable of making characters out of others. A character not being specified as gay apparently causes the sky to fall. But exclusively for you as you try to make it everyone else’s problem.
-
@Wahara said:
No, it doesn't. You're resorting to mis-characterization, now. I did not say that everyone who is LGBT will have a hard time imagining their characters as having their orientation. I said that it is harder for them to do so compared to players who are straight, given that heterosexuality is the assumed default. How would you like that to spelled out for you more clearly? Would you prefer a pop up book?Again, and I asked you why whether or not sexuality is easier to display or not is relevant, not just to the question of whether or not sexuality should be confirmed, but to anything.
Oh. Wait a second. Finally! You actually made a new point! One that hasn't been repeated! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm so proud of you. Your point is still bullshit, of course, but I'm proud of you. Good job. The claim, if I understood correctly, is that "Race and gender are easier to display than sexuality, therefore there is less excuse to not include them and that they have priority over sexuality."
The problem is that both of those conclusions don't hold water. You cannot connect the ease of something or the difficulty of something to whether you should do something. Sometimes, the harder thing to do takes priority over the easier thing to do and vice versa. See? Now if you had made this point the first time instead of rudely repeating what had already been addressed several times, you wouldn't have gotten such an attitude. Was that so hard?
And no, you mentioned gender, but the only thing you actually attempted to dispute in detail was the contrast with race. And technically, within the context of a video game, I will argue that sexuality is easier to display than both gender and race. Gender and race both require coding to express. By comparison, a few simple sentences is much easier.
The reason me and everyone else is repeating ourselves is because you’re not refuting is at all! This is literally all turned into a massive YOU problem. Your imagination sucks, you can’t get immersed, no one cares. And because no one cares it’ll never get changed. Also, have you seen how gay this games player base is? It’s super gay and I love it. Look at the reddit for ten seconds and the gayness will break any heterosexuals computer screen. And those people are the exact reason you DO NOT specify these things. You you can make crack assumptions like them that can’t be denied. It’s awesome
-
PLOT TWIST! : The original poster is some teen who keeps getting distracted and losing matches, so they need spirits outfit removed.
-
It takes at least twice that. And remember me exists. Stop it, get some help
-
@Fibijean said:
@Jack11803 I love the stuff you're saying but for the love of God stop using that headache-inducing text colour. I'm begging you.⊂ヽ
＼＼＿
＼( ••) F
< ⌒ヽ A
/ へ＼ B
/ / ＼＼ U
ﾚ ノ ヽつ L
/ / O
/ /| U
( (ヽ S
| |、＼
| 丿 ＼⌒)
| | ) /
`ノ ). Lﾉ
(／/ -
@The_Crusader said:
360s are awful. It's just exploiting the poor mechanics of the game and all these toxic little ****s think they're "so k3wl!!" for doing them. Too bad outside of cornfields they never work more than once.I feel no sympathy for anyone who tries pulling one on me. I won't be going easy on then or giving them the hatch.
It’s a simple method of dodging that may or not work.
-
Also, the devs did their job well. Hag is even more exposed. Neither are sexualuzdd. While Myers, huntress, and trapper ARE. It’s not really a problem. Itd just cause controversy for changing a paid for product.
-
Her paid outfit is what she WAS wearing. Her father cut her to bits, leaving only the bonding sashes of her clothes behind.
-
I feel adding a resident evil chapter is a good idea. If we’re going for a console exclusive, I’d say last of us for PS4. And something for xbox
-
@Jack11803 said:
On reddit someone even posted a fix tjet made. Couldn’t be hard for the devs.
Credit at u/Chattywindow
-
On reddit someone even posted a fix tjet made. Couldn’t be hard for the devs.